A. The need for internationalism flows from the position of
the working class internationally. This in its turn has been developed
by capitalism through the organisation of world economy as one single
indivisible whole. The interests of the working-class of one country
are the same as the interests of the workers of the other countries.
Because of the division of labour established by capitalism, the basis
is laid for a new international organisation of labour and planned
production on a world scale. Thus, the struggle of the working class on
all countries forms the basis for the movement towards Socialism.

Capitalism, through the private ownership of the means of
production, developed industry and smashed the local particularism of
Feudalism. It broke down the archaic customs dues, tolls and exactions
of Feudalism. Its great creation is the national state and the world
market. But once having accomplished this task, it itself has become a
fetter on the development of production. The national state and private
ownership of the means of production hamper the development of society.
Production possibilities can only be fully utilised by abolishing
national barriers and establishing a European and World Federation of
Workers' states. These, with state ownership and workers' management,
are a necessary transition stage on the road to socialism. It is these
factors which dictate the strategy and tactics of the proletariat, as
reflected in its conscious leadership. In the aphorisms of Marx "the
workers have no country" and therefore "Workers of the world unite".

A. It was with these considerations
in mind that Marx first organised the First International as a means of
uniting the advanced layers of the working-class on an international
scale. In the First International were British Trade Unionists, French
Radicals and Russian Anarchists. Guided by Marx, it laid the framework
for the development of the Labour Movement in Europe, Britain and
America. In its day, the bourgeoisie trembled before the menace of
Communism in the form of the International. It established deep roots
in the main European countries. After the collapse of the Paris
Commune, there was an upswing of capitalism on a world scale. Under
these conditions, the pressures of capitalism on the labour movement
resulted in internal quarrels and factionalism. The intrigues of the
Anarchists received heightened impetus. The growth of capitalism in an
organic upswing in its turn affected the organisation internationally.
Under such circumstances, after first moving the headquarters of the
organisation to New York, Marx and Engels decided that, for the time
being, it would be better to dissolve the International in 1876.

The work of Marx and Engels bore fruit in mass organisations of the
proletariat in Germany, France, Italy and other countries as Marx had
foreseen. This in its turn prepared the way for the organisation of the
International on the principles of Marxism, which embraced greater
masses. Thus in 1889, the Second International was born. But the
development of the Second International largely took place within the
framework of an organic upswing in capitalism, and while in words
espousing the ideas of Marxism, the top layers of world social
democracy came under the pressure of capitalism. The leaders of the
Social Democratic Parties and the Trade Union mass organisations of the
working class, became infected with the habits and style of living of
the ruling class. The habit of compromise and discussion with the
ruling class became second nature. The negotiation of differences
through compromise moulded their habits of thought. They believed that
the steady increase in the standard of living, due to the pressure of
the mass organisations, would continue indefinitely. The leaders raised
themselves a step higher above the masses in their conditions of
existence. This affected the top layers of the Parliamentarians and the
Trade Unions. 'Conditions determine consciousness' and the decades of
peaceful development which followed the Commune of 1870, changed the
character of the leadership of the mass organisations. Supporting
Socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat in words, and
espousing Internationalism in phrases, in practice the leadership had
gone over to the support of the national state. At the Basle Conference
of 1912, with growing contradictions of world imperialism and the
inevitability of world war, the Second International resolved to oppose
by all means, including general strike and civil war, the attempt to
throw the peoples into senseless slaughter. Lenin and the Bolsheviks,
together with Luxembourg, Trotsky and other leaders of the movement,
participated in the organisation of the Second International as the
means for the liberation of mankind from the shackles of capitalism.

A. The work of Marx and Engels with the First International
bore fruit in mass organisations of the proletariat in Germany, France,
Italy and other countries as Marx had foreseen. This in its turn
prepared the way for the organisation of the International on the
principles of Marxism, which embraced greater masses. Thus in 1889, the
Second International was born. But the development of the Second
International largely took place within the framework of an organic
upswing in capitalism, and while in words espousing the ideas of
Marxism, the top layers of world social democracy came under the
pressure of capitalism. The leaders of the Social Democratic Parties
and the Trade Union mass organisations of the working class, became
infected with the habits and style of living of the ruling class. The
habit of compromise and discussion with the ruling class became second
nature. The negotiation of differences through compromise moulded their
habits of thought. They believed that the steady increase in the
standard of living, due to the pressure of the mass organisations,
would continue indefinitely. The leaders raised themselves a step
higher above the masses in their conditions of existence. This affected
the top layers of the Parliamentarians and the Trade Unions.
'Conditions determine consciousness' and the decades of peaceful
development which followed the Commune of 1870, changed the character
of the leadership of the mass organisations. Supporting Socialism and
the dictatorship of the proletariat in words, and espousing
Internationalism in phrases, in practice the leadership had gone over
to the support of the national state. At the Basle Conference of 1912,
with growing contradictions of world imperialism and the inevitability
of world war, the Second International resolved to oppose by all means,
including general strike and civil war, the attempt to throw the
peoples into senseless slaughter. Lenin and the Bolsheviks, together
with Luxembourg, Trotsky and other leaders of the movement,
participated in the organisation of the Second International as the
means for the liberation of mankind from the shackles of capitalism.

In 1914, the leaders of Social Democracy in nearly all countries
rallied to the support of their own ruling class in the First World
War. So unexpected was the crisis and the betrayer of the principles of
Socialism, that even Lenin believed that the issue of Vorwaerts, the
central organ of the German Social Democracy, containing the support
for the war credits was a forgery of the German General Staff. The
International had ingloriously collapsed at its first serious test.

A. After the collapse of the Second International,
Lenin, Trotsky, Liebknecht, Luxemburg, MacLean and Connolly and other
Leaders were reduced to leading small sects. The Internationalists of
the world in 1916, as the participants of the Zimmerwald Conference
joked, could be gathered together in a few stage coaches. The
unexpectedness of the betrayal led to the position where the
Internationalists, isolated and weak, tended to be a little ultra-left.
In order to differentiate themselves from 'Social Patriots' and
'Traitors to Socialism', they were compelled to lay down the
fundamental principles of Marxism - the responsibility of Imperialism
for War, the right to self-determination of Nationalities, the need for
the conquest of power, separation from the practice and policies of
reformism. Lenin had declared that the idea that the First World War
was a 'war to end wars' was a pernicious fairy-tale of the Labour
bosses. If the war was not followed by a series of successful Socialist
Revolutions, it would be followed by a second, a third, even a tenth
world war till the possible annihilation of mankind. The blood and the
suffering in the trenches to the profit of the millionaire monopolists
would inevitably provoke a revolt of the peoples against the colossal
slaughter.

The principles achieved their justification in the Russian
Revolution of 1917, under the leadership of the Bolsheviks. This was
followed by a series of revolutions and revolutionary situations from
1917 to 1921. However the young forces of the new International, which
was officially founded in 1919, were weak and immature. As a
consequence, though the effect of the Russian Revolution was to provoke
a wave of radicalisation in most of the countries of Western Europe and
the organisation of mass Communist Parties, they were too weak to take
advantage of the situation. The first waves of the radicalisation saw
the masses turning to their traditional organisations and because of
the inexperience, lack of understanding of Marxist theory, method and
organisation, and due to their immaturity, the young Communist Parties
were incapable of taking advantage of the situation. Thus capitalism
was able to stabilize itself temporarily.

In the revolutionary situation in Germany in 1923, because of the
policies of the leadership, which went through the same crisis as the
leadership of the Bolshevik Party in 1917, the opportunity to take
power was missed. After this American Imperialism hastened to come to
the aid of German capitalism for fear of 'Bolshevism' in the west. This
prepared the way for the degeneration of the Soviet Union, because of
its isolation and backwardness, and the corruption and rotting away of
the Third International.

In 1923 we had the beginning of the consolidation of the Stalinist
Bureaucracy and its usurpation of power in the Soviet Union. A similar
process to that which had taken place in the degeneration of the Second
International over the decades, took place in a short period of time in
the Soviet Union. Having conquered power in a backward country, the
Marxists were prepared confidently for the international revolution as
the only solution to the problems of the workers of Russia and of the
world. But in 1924, Stalin came forward as the representative of
Officialdom which had raised itself above the level of the masses of
the workers and peasants.

Where 'Art, Science and Government' had remained their preserve,
instead of the ideas of Marx and Lenin of the participation in
Government and the running of industry by the mass of the population,
the vested interests of the privileged layers came to the fore. In the
autumn of 1924, Stalin in violation of the traditions of Marxism and
Bolshevism, for the first time brought out the utopian theory of
'Socialism in one country'. The Internationalists under Trotsky fought
against this theory and predicted that it would result in the collapse
of the Communist International and the national degeneration of its
sections.

Theory is not an abstraction but a guide to struggle. Theories, when
they secure mass support, must represent the interests and pressure of
groupings, castes or classes, in society. Thus the theory of 'Socialism
in one country', represented the ideology of the ruling caste in the
Soviet Union, that layer of Officialdom who were satisfied with the
results of the revolution, and did not want their privileged position
disturbed. It was this outlook which now began to change the Communist
International from an instrument of international revolution into
merely a border-guard for the defence of the Soviet Union, which was
supposed to be busily constructing Socialism on its own.

A. The expulsion of the Left Opposition in the Communist Parties (Third International)which
stood by the principles of Internationalism and Marxism, now took
place. The defeat of the British General Strike and the Chinese
Revolution of 1925-1927, prepared the way for this development. At this
stage it was a question of 'mistakes' in the policies of Stalin,
Bukharin and their henchmen. It was a question of their position as
ideologists of the privileged layer and the enormous pressures of
capitalism and reformism. These mistakes of leadership had doomed the
movement of the proletariat in other countries to defeat and disaster.

Having burned their fingers in trying to conciliate the Reformists
in the West and the Colonial bourgeoisie in the East, Stalin and his
clique zig-zagged to an ultra-Left position, dragging the leadership of
the Communist International with them. They split the German workers
instead of advocating a United Front to prevent Fascism coming to power
in Germany, and thus prepared the way, by paralysis of the German
proletariat, for the victory of Hitler. The degeneration of the Soviet
Union and the betrayal of the Third International in its turn prepared
the way for the crimes and betrayal of the Stalinist counter-revolution
in the Soviet Union.

Apart from the nationalisation of the means of production, the monopoly
of foreign trade and planned production, nothing remained of the
heritage of October. The purge, the one sided civil war in the Soviet
Union, had their counterparts in the parties of the Communist
International. The victory of Hitler and the defeats in Spain and
France were the results of these developments. From 1924 to 1927,
Stalin had based himself on an alliance with- the Kulaks and 'Nepmen'
in the Soviet Union, and the 'building of Socialism at a snail's pace'.
At the same time, abroad Stalinism stood for a 'neutralisation' of the
capitalists, and a conciliation of the Social-Democrats as a means of
'warding-off' the threat of war. The defeat of the Left Opposition in
the Soviet Union, with its programme of a return to Workers' Democracy,
and the introduction of five-year plans, was due to the international
defeats of the proletariat, caused by Stalinist policies.

From grovelling before the Social Democrats, and other international
'friends of the Soviet Union', the Communist International swung over
to the policies of the 'third period'. The slump of 1929-33 was
supposed to be 'the last crisis of capitalism'. Fascism and Social
Democracy were twins, and these 'theories' paved the way for the
terrible defeats of the international working-class.

At the same time, the policies of the Left Opposition in Russia won
over the most advanced elements in the most important Communist Parties
in the world. The Lessons of October, a work by Trotsky, dealt with the
lessons of the abortive revolution of 1923 in Germany. The general
programme of the opposition at home and abroad was answered by
expulsions not only in the Russian Party, but in the main sections of
the International. There was a rise of opposition groups in Germany,
France, Britain, Spain, USA, South Africa and other countries. The
programme of the opposition at this time was one of reform in the
Soviet Union and the International, and the adoption of correct
policies as against the opportunism of the period of 1923 to 1927, and
the adventurism of the period from 1927 to 1933.

These splits, as Engels had remarked in another connection, were a
healthy development in the sense of attempting to maintain the best
traditions of Bolshevism and of the ideal of the Communist
International. The crisis of leadership was the crisis of the
International and of all mankind. Thus, these splits were a means of
maintaining the ideals and methods of Marxism. In the first period of
its existence, the Left Opposition regarded itself as a section of the
Communist International; although expelled, and stood for the reform of
the International.

The masses, and even the advanced layers of the proletariat, only
learn through the lessons of great events. All history has shown that
the masses can never give up their old organisations until these have
been tested in the fire of experience. Up till 1933, the Marxist wing
of the International still stood for the reform of the Soviet Union and
the Communist International. Whether they would remain viable
organisations would be shown by the test of history. Thus tenaciously
the opposition maintained itself, although formally outside the ranks,
as part of the International.

It was the coming to power of Hitler and the refusal of the
Communist International to learn the lesson of the defeat which doomed
it as an instrument of the working-class in the struggle for Socialism.
Far from analysing the reasons for the fatal policy of Social Fascism,
the sections of the Communist International declared the victory of
Hitler to be a victory for the working-class, and as late as 1934
continued the same suicidal policies in France, of united action with
the Fascists against the 'Social Fascists' and the 'Radical Fascists'.
Daladier, which if successful would have prepared the way for the
Fascist coup in France in February 1934.

A. This betrayal (of the Third International)
and the terrible effect of the Hitler defeat led to a reappraisal of the
role of the Communist International. An International which could perpetrate the treachery
of surrendering the German proletariat to Hitler, without a shot being fired and without
provoking a crisis within its ranks, could no longer serve the needs of the proletariat.
An International which could acclaim this disaster as a victory could not fulfil its role
as a leadership of the proletariat. As an instrument of World Socialism, the Third
International was dead. From an instrument of International Socialism, the Communist
International had degenerated into a complete and docile tools of the Kremlin, into an
instrument of Russian Foreign Policy. It was now necessary to prepare the way for the
organisation of a Fourth International, untarnished with the crimes and betrayals which
besmirched the Reformist and Stalinist Internationals.

As in the days after the collapse of the Second International, the Revolutionary
Internationalists remained small isolated sects. In Belgium they had a couple of MPs and
an organisation of a thousand or two, in Austria and Holland, the same. The forces of the
new international were weak and immature, nevertheless they had the guidance and
assistance of Trotsky, and the perspectives of great historical events. They were educated
on the basis of an analysis of the experience of the Second and Third Internationals, and
of the Russian, German and Chinese Revolutions and the British General Strike, and of the
great events which had followed the First World War. In this way cadres were to be trained
and educated, as the indispensable skeleton of the body of the new International.

It was this period, taking into account the historical isolation of the movement from
the mass organisations of the Social Democracy and Communist party, that the tactic of
'entrism' was evolved. In order to win the best workers, it was necessary to find a
way of influencing them. This could only be done by working together with them in the mass
organisations. Thus beginning with the ILP in Britain, the idea of entrism was worked out
for the mass organisations of Social Democracy. This, where they were in a state of crisis
and moving towards the left. Thus, with the developing revolutionary situation in France
there was an entry into the Socialist Party. In Britain the entry of the ILP, then in a
state of flux and ferment after breaking from the Labour Party, was followed by entry by
many of the Trotskyists, on Trotsky's advice, into the Labour Party. In the USA there was
an entry into the Socialist Party.

In the main, the pre-war period was one of preparation and orientation and selection of
cadres or leading elements to be trained and steeled theoretically and practically, in the
movement of the masses.

The tactic of entry was also considered as a short term expedient, forced on the
revolutionaries by their isolation from the masses, and the impossibility of tiny
organisations getting the ear and finding support among the mass of the working class. It
was for the purpose of working among the radical elements looking for revolutionary
solutions, who wouldin the first place turn towards the mass organisations. But
always under all conditions the main ideas of Marxism should be put forward and the
revolutionary banner i.e. the ideas of Marxism, maintained and defended. It was a question
of acquiring experience and understanding, of combating both sectarianism and opportunism.
It was a means of developing a flexible approach, with the implacability of principle, as
a means of preparing the cadres for the great events which impended.

The defeats of the working class in Germany, France and in the civil war in Spain, the
defeats of the immediate post-war period, which were entirely due to the policies of the
Second and Third Internationals, in their turn prepared the way for the Second World War.
The paralysis of the proletariat in Europe, in conjunction with the new aggravated crisis
of world capitalism made the Second World War absolutely inevitable. It was in this
atmosphere that the 1938 founding conference of the Fourth International took place.

A. The document which was adopted at the conference (of the Fourth International) itself is an indication of the reason
for its foundation. The Transitional Programme of the FI is linked to the idea of mass
work, which itself is geared to the idea of the Socialist Revolution through transitional
slogans, from today's contradictory reality. As distinct from the minimum and maximum
programme of the Social Democracy is put the idea of a Transitional Programme,
transitional from capitalism to the socialist revolution. This is an indication of the
consideration of the epoch as one of wars and revolutions. Thus, all work has to be linked
to the idea of the Socialist Revolution.

The perspective of Trotsky was that of war, which in its turn would provoke revolution.
The problem of Stalinism would be resolved one way or another. Either the Soviet Union
would be regenerated through political revolution against Stalinism, or the victory of the
revolution in one of the important countries would resolve the situation on a world scale.
With proletarian revolution victorious, the problem of the Internationals of both
Stalinism and Reformism would be solved by events themselves.

This conditional prognosis, although revealing a fundamental understanding of processes
in class society, was not borne out by events. Due to the peculiar military and political
events of the war, Stalinism was temporarily strengthened. The revolutionary wave, during
and following the Second World War in Europe was this time betrayed by the Stalinists in a
worse fashion than the revolutionary wave following the First World War was betrayed by
the leaders of the Second International.

Trotsky's idea in pushing for the foundation of the Fourth International in 1938 was
because of the collapse of Stalinism and reformism as revolutionary tendencies within the
working class. Both had become enormous obstacles on the path of the emancipation of the
working class, and from being a means for the destruction of capitalism had become
incapable of leading the proletariat to the victory of the Socialist Revolution.

The question of new parties and a new International was a question of the immediate
perspectives which lay ahead. A new world war in its turn would provoke a new
revolutionary wave in the metropolitan countries andamong the colonial peoples.
The problems of Stalinism in Russia and the world would thereby be solved by these
revolutionary perspectives. Under these conditions it was imperative to prepare
organisationally as well as politically for the great events which were on the order of
the day. Thus, in 1938 Trotsky predicted that within ten years nothing would be left of
the old traitor organisations, and the Fourth International would have become the decisive
revolutionary force on the planet. There was nothing wrong with the basic analysis but
every prognosis is conditional; the multiplicity of factors, economically, politically,
socially, can always result in a different development than that foreseen. The weakness of
the revolutionary forces, indeed, has been a decisive factor in the development of world
politics, in the more than thirty years since Trotsky wrote. Unfortunately, the mandarins
of the 'Fourth International', on its leading body, without Trotsky's guidance
and without Trotsky's presence interpreted this idea of Trotsky's not as a
worked out thesis but as literally correct.